Anthony Castaneda: "The charter is the bones of the city."
Charter Commission co-chair Anthony Castaneda on why it's time to update Portland's founding document.
Anthony Castaneda is the policy manager of Latino Network, Oregon’s largest Latino advocacy organization. He is also a co-chair of the Charter Commission, the independent body tasked with reviewing Portland’s city charter and recommending changes. Follow Anthony Castaneda on Twitter.
Rose City Reform caught up with Commissioner Castaneda to get his take on the reform effort.
Anthony is a first-generation Mexican-American, who was born and raised in Oregon. He moved to Portland a decade ago and quickly fell in love with the city, though he often misses his small town and surrounding fields of crops. Anthony works at the intersection of education and community development. He holds a dual BA in Russian and Political Science from Portland State University and a joint MPP/MA from the University of Michigan-Ann Arbor.
Why did you choose to get involved in charter reform?
A lot of my motivation comes from my background in land use policy. Land use policy gets to determine a lot of what is going to happen in the city, what gets built and what doesn’t. Similarly, the charter essentially is the bones of the city. It influences Portland’s ability to deal with future challenges and respond to innovation.
I’m also motivated by my experience with Latino Network. I’ve had hundreds, if not thousands, of conversations with community members from all over the city. I’ve been here for about a decade and one thing I’ve always felt in Portland is a lack of connectedness to my representatives.
How do we improve representation? How do we bring into the decision-making process those voices that have been left out? When I say voices that have been left out, I mean marginalized groups as well as groups like small business owners. Portland is very neighborhood-oriented, and those districts have gone ignored for a long time.
Why does Portland need charter reform?
The reason we are facing various crises simultaneously today is the city’s inability to deliver services efficiently and equitably. The way the charter is set up isn’t prepared to deal with the challenges of today. We need to remove city commissioners from day-to-day operations. The city is just too big.
We wouldn’t expect one person to be the CEO of four or five companies, yet we have commissioners that are essentially the CEOs of four or five bureaus with operating budgets mounting into the billions.
There is also a widespread feeling of lack of representation among voters. Voters don’t know where to go for answers, or which bureaus to contact for basic services. An elected official doesn’t need to be the point person for everything, but the system needs to be set up in a way where professional staff can respond to the needs of the community.
Why did the commission decide to tackle several issues versus just one big issue, like Portland’s form of government?
Early in the process we defined six desired outcomes. We quickly realized that focusing solely on form of government wasn’t going to deliver on those outcomes. Portland has always been a catalyst for change and has pushed some incredible election policies to increase voter turnout and make it easier to run for office.
The components of city elections determine how well the form of government functions. And we can’t talk about district-based elections without talking about form of government. Otherwise, we risk moving to a district-based system of representation only to undermine the power of those representatives.
What is the most common feedback you get from the public about charter reform?
It’s been incredibly worthwhile to listen to different stakeholders. Folks are coming to these conversations with different experiences of working with the city. The business community is a great example. Business owners in neighborhood business districts want different representation than businesses downtown.
The most common thread is the desire for better representation and more accountability. Folks want to see elected officials deliver on the promises that they were elected on.
What in your mind are the main details that remain to be hashed out?
We are still considering a council-manager system versus a mayor-council system. The community seems pretty split on these two systems, with a slight preference for council-manager. The recurring thread is the desire for more accountability. We are trying to move away from this binary notion that it’s necessarily one or the other. I think we can combine elements of both forms of government to find something that is going to meet the needs of the city.
We have heard resoundingly from Portlanders that they don’t want a strong mayor. However, there are elements of the strong mayor system that resonate with voters. They want a mayor who is a collaborator and ready to work with councilors representing districts. Ultimately that mayor needs a certain level of power to create a vision and to implement a budget that is going to serve all Portlanders.
Secondly, we are looking at two models for district representation. Traditional single member districts, or multi-member districts. I’m personally leaning toward multi-member districts. That model is more common in legislatures than in cities, but Portland has the highest concentration of population in the state and is comparable in size to some legislatures.
The third layer is the voting method. We’re considering ranked choice voting for city council elections. We haven’t completely ruled out STAR voting but based on community feedback I think we’re leaning toward ranked choice voting. Layering multi-member districts and the voting method is important to avoid recreating the silos we have today.
This charter commission is more diverse than its predecessors. How do you think that has informed the process?
We all come from different parts of the city. That was something the previous City Council considered when they appointed the commission because that is really going to influence the outcome if we are moving toward district elections. It’s a testament to the commission’s composition that we have folks from the Portland Business Alliance, community organizers, folks from labor backgrounds and folks who are small business owners. It’s been reassuring that we’ve been able to reach agreements that we feel strongly about.
This interview has been edited for brevity and clarity.
Maja Viklands Harris is a Portland resident, a recovering journalist, a policy activist and a serial citizen advisory board member. Her writing focuses on government reform, public process, decision-making psychology and policy best practice.
Thanks for this perspective, Steven! I like the way you are framing these questions. It's not so much about the exact power distribution, but rather the feasibility of implementing a holistic vision and allowing a realistic path for elected officials' mandates.
Why couldn't a city manager, perhaps in collaboration with the council or mayor, propose a vision and a budget subject to council approval? Or some variant of that? Some cities survey citizens frequently about their preferences. In pure city manager forms of government, the council selects one of its members to serve as mayor, which might not make sense if council members are elected by district, unless the mayoral position is ceremonial. Or, the mayor could be elected at-large and independently. If you want a mayor to define the vision and implement it, should the mayor have a lengthy term of office to see it through? On average, city managers remain in their positions only for three to five years. This highlights the importance of defining what you mean by "vision" and the time we're willing to give decision-makers to implement it.